"Indian" is not just an national identity but also an ethnic one. A person of Indian origin born in America or the UK is still very easily identifiable and is identified by their Indian identity.
The usage of the word "racism" to include xenophobia is common enough in a casual context that I cannot believe that you are simply not aware of that usage. By choosing to argue over the semantics of the word racism over usage you probably already are familiar with, you are diverting attention from what really matters here: that said racism or xenophobia exists and negatively affects real human beings.
Good luck trying to control how people use language. I was just saying that it was already a common enough usage that you should be aware of it, even if you disagree with that usage.
Has common usage subsumed any geography-based xenophobia into the word “racism”?
(Not that any xenophobia is particularly better than any other, but it’s difficult to talk to people when they use broader meanings for words you thought meant very specific thing. See also terrorism vs insurgency, genocide vs occupation, etc.)
Racism as something based on skin color only would make Nazi basically not racists in their worst acts. Cause their racism was literally Aryan race against all other races - Slavic, Jews (European Jews where white, the physical features were like somewhat bigger nose), British, French. With Jews on the bottom, as the wort enemy worst then blacks. And they would not care a bit about different kind of Indians either.
If anything, attempts to redefine racism as only American variant where it is all about shades of color is redefinition.
And obviously, ethnicity and geography goes with races.
